Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before a House appropriations subcommittee on behalf of his department's proposed budget for FY2015.

Apparently, Holder didn't think anyone would read his written submission, because he all-but-admitted that Obama intends to implement a Universal Gun Registry by executive fiat. He also asked Congress to help fund so-called “smart gun” technology, which would prevent a gun from firing unless the shooter is wearing an accompanying bracelet or ring.

“Smart guns” are a dumb idea

Given that “smart gun” technology only works about 80 percent of the time -- according to the New Jersey Institute of Technology -- gun owners almost universally consider this a “dumb” idea. Even police have rejected the “dumb gun” approach for themselves. Currently, there are no such guns on the market in the United States. One gun store did briefly offer an Armatix .22 caliber earlier this year, but public outrage forced them to pull the handgun from the shelves.

Holder pushes a Universal Gun Registry

This year’s Obama budget shows how the administration is trying to quietly create the infrastructure for a universal gun registry.

In proposed “Program Increases” for the FBI, Holder has this to say:

“This program enhancement will double the capacity of the existing NICS [National Instant Check System] system. These expansions are vital in ensuring that the NICS system can support a Universal Background Check requirement, which is expected to double gross NICS transactions.”

Huh?

It may have escaped the Attorney General's notice, but the Democrat Senate defeated his Universal Background Check requirement.

So, in effect, Holder's asking for $100 million and 524 personnel to implement a program Congress rejected.But that's not all.

Holder seeking more ATF agents to copy to 4473 forms

In the section on ATF “Program Increases,” Holder demands $51.1 million and 255 agents and other personnel for enforcement and inspections. In case anyone has forgotten, these are the people who are going to the FFL's in connection with “annual inspections” -- and physically copying all the 4473's and bound book entries. GOA has reported on these efforts before, and one can read first-hand accounts from gun dealers here and here.

So under Holder's proposed budget, many more 4473's would be copied and fed into ATF's de facto registry. At the same time, Obama's illegal Universal Background Check -- implemented, presumably, by executive fiat -- would ensure every gun transaction would have to go through an FFL. And this, of course, would guarantee that every American gun owner would have a 4473 which can be copied.

Think about it. With Republicans expected to take the Senate this fall -- and Obama stymied legislatively -- he has every incentive to go "full tyrant." And that, apparently, is exactly what he intends to do.

But we have no intention to sit back and let Holder take away our Second Amendment rights. We have drafted legislation to prohibit ATF from copying 4473's -- and to require it to destroy any 4473's it currently has.

UPDATE: GOA recently alerted you that an import ban on certain ammunition could be forthcoming from the ATF. Well, it’s official now -- the ATF just declared that Russian-made 7N6 5.45x39 ammo is armor piercing. This lawlessness represents another reason that Congress needs to cut t he ATF’s budget.

ACTION: Click here to Contact your Representative. Demand that the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill contain language to prohibit ATF from compiling a national gun registry by copying and retaining the 4473's of every American.

GOA Slams Bloomberg and Justice Stevens for their Idiotic Ideas on the 2nd AmendmentWhile gun owners dramatically winning the culture war

“The founders did not establish a right to bear arms,” GOA’s Erich Pratt was quoted as saying to Newsmax. “They assumed it already existed [and] said that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ [But] gun-control advocates frequently want to skip over those words.” (MARC: Excellent point!)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not a GOA member yet? Click here to join Gun Owners of America! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gun Owners of America joined a chorus of pro-gun organizations in slamming idiotic comments made recently by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.In a newly released book, Justice Stevens said the Second Amendment should be altered to say that people only have the right to bear arms “when serving in the militia.” GOA blasted the comments, adding that gun owners would welcome the opportunity to demolish Stevens’ arguments in the court of public opinion. “Bring on the debate,” said GOA Communications Director Erich Pratt in an interview with Newsmax over the weekend. Gun control advocates are always “pushing for draconian gun restrictions” while hiding behind words like “gun safety.”But to a gun banner, those words are code for, “We just want the military and the police to have guns,” Pratt said. “So let’s get them out of the closet.”Gun owners need not worry about Stevens’ idea gaining traction. Even an anti-gun liberal, like Professor Alan Dershowitz, opposes Stevens’ proposal.“You don't amend the Magna Carta,” Dershowitz said. “You don't amend the Bill of Rights. There are certain things that you just leave pristine.”GOA agrees. And increasingly, so do the American people.Polls show more Americans opposing gun controlRemember all the phony polls which were used by Obama last year in order to push gun control? Remember the unrelenting unilateral media pressure to ban guns -- pressure reflected in even the “conservative” media? Well, who's laughing now? Tuesday, the liberal USA Today was forced to concede that even liberal pollsters have found a massive, cataclysmic shift by Americans in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. We bet that USA Today trolled all of the polls for some evidence that Americans embraced gun control to the same extent as their editorial board. What they found was a liberal Pew poll -- conducted immediately after last year's Newtown vote in April -- that found that Americans were statistically evenly divided between pro-gunners and anti-gunners. Okay, it's a liberal poll. But what was even more interesting is that, in 2000, the same poll, asking the same questions, had found Americans supporting gun control by a margin of 66% to 29% -- a 37% gap in favor of gun control. And Pew is not alone. Later in 2013, Gallup found that 51% of all Americans do not support stricter gun control. In 2000, that number was 38% -- with 62% of Americans supposedly favoring more anti-gun laws. Of course, 2000 was the year when gun owners confounded the pollsters and elected George Bush as president, over the anti-gun Democratic candidate, Al Gore. Hence, you shouldn’t trust the polls. But when liberal gun grabbers are forced to concede that the polls are against them, that tells you something really interesting. So, guess what, in this Easter week, we note that even Satan quotes scripture when he has no choice.Bloomberg gets it really, really wrongSpeaking of the forces of darkness quoting Scripture, anti-gun former Mayor Michael Bloomberg chose this Easter week to try his hand at some biblical exposition.But before we tell you about his whopper, Bloomberg made headlines on Wednesday after announcing his “threat” to spend $50 million to change people’s hearts and minds in favor of gun control.Never mind the fact that Bloomberg has anything but the Midas touch when it comes to pushing gun control, as he’s lost almost every battle where he’s spent his millions. “I guess he’s free to do so; he’s got money to waste,” said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt on MSNBC. “But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”Indeed, Bloomberg lost in Nevada last year, where he tried to get a universal gun registry and universal background checks enacted. He lost in Colorado, where he tried to rescue two state senators from being recalled because of their gun control votes. And he lost in the U.S. Senate, where a concealed carry amendment actually garnered more Senate votes than did his proposal for expanding background checks on guns.But it’s not just on guns where he gets it wrong. Obviously proud of his efforts in pushing firearms restrictions, Bloomberg said this week that:

“If there is a God, when I get to heaven, I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I’m heading right in. I’ve earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”Wow, if he thinks he’s blessed because of his efforts to disarm the public, he should consider passages like I Samuel 13:16-22, where arms control was considered a curse; and Luke 22:36, where Jesus told His disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword (if they didn’t already have one).And as for breezing right through the pearly gates, without an interview, and gaining entrance on the basis of his own very tainted efforts? Does he really think that he can buy his way into heaven because of the millions he’s spent on “social issues”? Most people would find that disgusting.Sadly, it appears that Bloomberg has no idea what this Easter weekend is all about. And so on that note, we here at Gun Owners of America hope that you and your family will have a blessed holiday.

HIDDEN LEGAL TRAP WARNING: Even if your state allows you to legally be prescribed medical marijuana, the feds haven't officially changed their position on this and you could be "fried like a chicken gizzard on a hot, sticky Sunday night in the Deep South (Pancho Vilos)" for possessing a firearm and marijuana at the same time or admitting to being a user of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. Never forget, BATF also stands for Ban All the Fun (also, by Pancho Vilos).

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled Monday it was illegal to buy a gun on behalf of someone else who did not go through the background check.

The ruling comes on the heels of a spate of US shootings that have again sparked debate over gun control, with President Barack Obama calling for national "soul searching" over gun violence.The top court ruled five to four against a former Virginia policeman, Bruce Abramski, who made a so-called "straw purchase" of a handgun for his uncle, who was in Pennsylvania.Although both men were legal gun owners, Abramski had indicated on a federal form that he was the gun's actual buyer.During the January 22 oral arguments, Abramski's lawyer, Richard Dietz, contended the transaction was legal because the men's legal and mental background allowed either of them to purchase a firearm.But justice Elena Kagan responded at the time: "It doesn't matter if the ultimate transferee is Al Capone or somebody else.""The purpose is to take away guns from (persons with) mental illnesses."Kagan responded again Monday in giving the court's majority decision, summarizing the opinion of the court's four progressive justices alongside more conservative justice Anthony Kennedy, who has often been a swing vote."No piece of information is more important under federal firearms law than the identity of a gun’s purchaser," Kagan emphasized, saying it was "fundamental to the lawfulness of a gun sale" to respond truthfully on the federal form.But in their dissent, the four more conservative judges said it was enough that the buyer and the eventual owner were both legally eligible to own guns.This is the second Supreme Court ruling this year on gun control issues. In March, the court upheld a federal law barring anyone convicted of even a minor domestic violence charge from ever owning a gun.

AN Adelaide man who had his gun license photo taken with a colander on his head says it is significant to his religion — the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — and he should not have had to undertake a psychological test.

Guy Albon, a 30-year-old disability worker in Adelaide, said his four guns and license were confiscated by police after their attention was drawn to his firearms license photo, which shows with him the colander.

Mr Albon, of Port Noarlunga, successfully argued he should be allowed to wear the pasta draining utensil in his license photo because it was a religious head piece.

When he had his license renewed last year, Mr Albon declared himself a Pastafarian and member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster , a movement that promotes a lighthearted view of religion.

“I thought it would be a bit of fun,” he told The Advertiser

“As far as I know I’m the first person to do it (in Australia). I’ve copped quite a bit of flack from the police firearms branch and I’ve told them as far as I know — my legal knowledge is limited — but as long as the piece was a religious head piece it was going to be okay. They don’t have a qualifying list of religions not allowed to wear them.”

Mr Albon said the Service SA attendant was surprised to learn of the religion but allowed the photo to be taken.

“When I lined up for the picture — I popped it on my head and I told her I’m Pastafarian,” he said.

“She looked at me a little perplexed and I explained it to her and she was quite impressed and said she would like to look into it. I’m hoping she became a member actually.”

Mr Albon’s story has travelled around the world and, despite a psychiatrist confirming he was safe to own weapons, the photo with the colander had been destroyed.

He said he had been told he would have to be photographed again, this time without the cooking utensil on his head.

“I was told I was mentally competent and I have never misused my guns or intend to do so. So it’s a real kick in the guts that I was told if I went to get another photo with the colander, my guns would once again be confiscated.”

Mr Albon has to renew his driver’s license in the coming months and has vowed to wear a colander on his head once again.

"Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. at the peak of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. “Just for self defense,” King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend’s Montgomery, Alabama home as “an arsenal.”

Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to selfprotection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history. In This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb Jr. describes the vital role that armed self-defense played in the survival and liberation of black communities in America during the Southern Freedom Movement of the 1960s. In the Deep South, blacks often safeguarded themselves and their loved ones from white supremacist violence by bearing—and, when necessary, using—firearms. In much the same way, Cobb shows, nonviolent civil rights workers received critical support from black gun owners in the regions where they worked. Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these courageous men and women and the weapons they carried were crucial to the movement’s success.

Giving voice to the World War II veterans, rural activists, volunteer security guards, and self-defense groups who took up arms to defend their lives and liberties, This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed lays bare the paradoxical relationship between the nonviolent civil rights struggle and the Second Amendment. Drawing on his firsthand experiences in the civil rights movement and interviews with fellow participants, Cobb provides a controversial examination of the crucial place of firearms in the fight for American freedom."

On Tuesday, Missouri voters pushed aside the concerns of law enforcement, particularly from urban areas, and approved a ballot measure revamping their state constitution to strengthen gun rights in the Show Me State. The measure passed with 61% of the vote, carrying all but three jurisdictions: St. Louis City and County, and Boone County, which encompasses the university town of Columbia. The move is a step towards changing how the right to bear arms is seen.

The ballot measure was important to legal analysts because it made Missouri just the second state to adopt the "strict scrutiny" standard for gun laws. When interpreting a law with "strict scrutiny" a court has to find that a law furthers a "compelling government interest," is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and utilizes the least restrictive method to achieve it. It's the highest standard among the three categories of scrutiny in legal doctrine. It is also how the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment are interpreted in the U.S. Constitution. Some argue the Supreme Court majority adopted "strict scrutiny" in its DC vs. Heller decision, even though it wasn't specifically mentioned there. This could be the new trend in Second Amendment interpretation and a significant upgrade from the "rational basis" standard often used, the lowest of the three.

"Strict scrutiny is a big da-- deal," said St. Louis attorney Chuck Hatfield, an opponent of the ballot issue. "Right now, the law is that the state has the right to regulate guns and arms in a reasonable exercise of police power. Strict scrutiny is a whole other game."

But the legislator who introduced the measure argued that his intent was to make the Second Amendment "just as viable as other constitutional rights." The measure also extended the right to bear arms already in the state's constitution and added ammunition and "the accessories typical to the normal function of such arms," while eliminating a prohibition on concealed carry.

"The Missouri Constitution is now the gold standard for the protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms," added state Senator Kurt Schaefer.

To most, the Missouri vote was just an extension of the common sense found in most areas of what's called "flyover country" by denizens of the coasts. By further spelling out the open-ended provisions of the Second Amendment, Missouri has taken a step toward the founders' intent by leaving the options for self-defense as open as possible.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge has overturned part of a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, ruling that it does not apply to those who already own firearms.

U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii of Fresno ruled that "10-day waiting periods impermissibly violate the Second Amendment" for gun-buyers who already passed background checks or are authorized to carry concealed weapons.

Californians buying their first firearm will still be subject to background checks and the 10-day waiting period under the ruling, dated Friday.

A spokesman for the state attorney general, Nick Pacilio, said Monday that officials are reviewing the ruling as they decide whether to appeal.

Two gun owners and two gun-owner rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation, sued over the state waiting period in 2011.